Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 22 Dec 2014 03:01

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4018 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 ... 101  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 15 Mar 2012 21:24 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 10162
Location: Kali blessing station No 5, Mleccha Defence Tower No 34, Harshavardhan Line - Western Sector
i think nasa operates an f16 control law test bed, which can be reprogrammed with different control laws for experimental purposes. i guess something like this was used


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Mar 2012 21:32 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59
Posts: 641
Flight test update
LCA-Tejas has completed 1800 Test Flights successfully. (14-Mar-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-216,PV3-334,LSP1-70,LSP2-201,PV5-36,LSP3-46,LSP4-46,LSP5-70,LSP7-1)


LCA-Tejas has completed 1798 Test Flights successfully. (13-Mar-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-215,PV3-334,LSP1-70,LSP2-200,PV5-36,LSP3-46,LSP4-46,LSP5-70,LSP7-1)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Mar 2012 21:36 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26869
Location: NowHere
again, just sharing what I experienced. /OT:
The deccan herald link was considered a threat by my web filter /symantec.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Mar 2012 22:53 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26
Posts: 615
Quote:
1. so, what is that heavily riveted "L" shaped with big screw-head mark beneath the canopy [re:indranil]?

2.do we need that many LRU panels? can't it all be one big side shaped panel, and reduced rivet? [context: only a skin question]

3. thinking ahead: any way to avoid rivets by insertion panel, where the join panel is perpendicular to the skin, and can be anything from nut and bolts to rivet and can't be seen from outside.


This L shape location is most ideal for mid-air refueling probe.

Maybe they left the location open and easily accessible for future add-on of refueling probe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Mar 2012 22:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26869
Location: NowHere
nice! it makes sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Mar 2012 23:29 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 08 Nov 2011 21:35
Posts: 28
Even i thought so. i was just observing the IFR probes on the Mig29Upg. They seem retractable ones. Tejas IFR probe i guess would be non retractable one like Rafale.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 00:32 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
Sid wrote:
This L shape location is most ideal for mid-air refueling probe.

Maybe they left the location open and easily accessible for future add-on of refueling probe.

No, that is not the case ... the L shaped thing can be seen on both sides of the cockpit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 00:41 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Posts: 1420
Location: Atop Orthanc, cursing, "Damn it where are those backfires??"
shiv wrote:
SaiK wrote:
on the t/o distance, it would be better to judge from some one who can take a peep at HAL airport, and guesstimate. Else, we need some super duper math guys, here. variable speed rate for 16 secs at t/o speed say 200kmph.

As per an earlier report nosewheel lift off was at 240 kmph. IIRC

That translates to 66 meters per sec in 15 sec, acceleration of 4.4 mpsec squared for a take off run of 500 meters.

Its the landing run that is long and perhaps the AoA opening up will aid a higher AoA and lower landing speed.


My guesstimate is just about 750-800 mts based on the runway markings and google earth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 01:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26
Posts: 615
^^ looking at the big size of screw, in the middle of that plate, there are low changes that it is housing any LRU.

but everything is speculation until any chai wala drops in with some more info.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 01:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26869
Location: NowHere
We should look at right sizing the mig-29 retractable wala.. that would be awesome!

retraction could be both on the horizontal and vertical plane, perhaps telescopic enough on the hz extension.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 02:06 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Posts: 1571
Location: New Delhi
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--0xvLdXKWZs/T ... 600/l6.jpg

What is the probe that is jutting out?
The riveted plate it sits on, is not in smooth conformity with the neighbouring plates. Looks like panel gaps & quality fit issue


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 02:10 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Nov 2011 21:43
Posts: 539
AdityaM wrote:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--0xvLdXKWZs/T2FYrf2darI/AAAAAAAABk0/4CJ7noVJl3A/s1600/l6.jpg

What is the probe that is jutting out?
The riveted plate it sits on, is not in smooth conformity with the neighbouring plates. Looks like panel gaps & quality fit issue



Image

This one does not have any indication of hidden refuel probe add-on as someone proposed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 02:17 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26869
Location: NowHere
boss, what you are seeing is on pilot's right side, whereas the L plate is on the left.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 02:23 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 5046
AdityaM wrote:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--0xvLdXKWZs/T2FYrf2darI/AAAAAAAABk0/4CJ7noVJl3A/s1600/l6.jpg

What is the probe that is jutting out?

That's a Pitot tube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 02:38 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26869
Location: NowHere
raptor cleverly keeps it under the front belly


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 02:45 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Nov 2011 21:43
Posts: 539
SaiK wrote:
boss, what you are seeing is on pilot's right side, whereas the L plate is on the left.


someone said it is on both sides


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 06:20 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26
Posts: 615
air refueling probe was just a guess. But this location is not far from where it will be in future.

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/4728/lcacomp4.jpg

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 07:33 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Posts: 1526
Location: Gora Paki
AOA Birathers...dont thank me thank the good soul that put that vid up on u tube onlee.

When NP1 flies my wish is to have a collection of drums like the ones we have for Ganapati procession and start them up just the bird starts to taxi! :twisted:

I wanted to ask a question is there a specific reason the pilot is wearing a half g suit here?

I have seen in the past pics of Rambha pilots wearing half g suits as well...saw a docco a few weeks back on Ruskie flanker pilots also doing the same thing regularly with half g suits...dunno if there is any specific reason for this.

Karthik...can i please have your email cheers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 10:37 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2535
Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 1801 Test Flights successfully. (15-Mar-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-217,PV3-334,LSP1-70,LSP2-201,PV5-36,LSP3-46,LSP4-46,LSP5-70,LSP7-1)

from

LCA-Tejas has completed 1800 Test Flights successfully. (14-Mar-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-216,PV3-334,LSP1-70,LSP2-201,PV5-36,LSP3-46,LSP4-46,LSP5-70,LSP7-1)


Go guys go test more


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 12:29 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2535
Pics of LSP7 on tejas.gov.in - the first one is a keeper

http://gallery.tejas.gov.in/Other/LSP-7-First-Flight/21947782_7qzgCd#!i=1750575254&k=MWSwN95


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 13:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Feb 2004 12:31
Posts: 312
It is a small bird that reminds me of the IDF fighter developed by Taiwanese in the late 1980s and early 1990s, although a little bit bigger with two small engines. Of course, the IDF shows very clear American influence while the LCA looks more French to me.

suryag wrote:


Last edited by wrdos on 16 Mar 2012 13:33, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 13:30 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 246
Location: Mumbai, India
The report for LSP-7 says that HUD was also tested and is present in this aircraft. Is the LCA Mark-I going to have a Helmet Mounted Sight for cuing the R-73 or Python-V missiles? Also will be LSP-8 have air to air refueling probe?

Thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 13:37 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Posts: 3349
Location: Loud, Proud American
wrdos wrote:
It is a small bird that reminds me of the IDF fighter developed by Taiwanese in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the latter a little bit bigger. Of course, the IDF shows very clear American influence while the LCA looks more French to me.

It does look like a French Mirage somewhat in pictures from the side. However, if you look at the wings from the top or bottom angle, the difference in the wing shape from the Mirage is obvious. The LCA has a compound delta wing, whereas a Mirage has a traditional triangle shaped delta wing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas has a good picture of the LCA banking and the compound delta wing is clearly shown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mirage_III-5_Risszeichnung.png Compare that wing with the wing of a Mirage jet and you can see the difference in wing shapes.

Engine intakes are also completely different shaped, as are the engine itself, avionics, size etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 13:41 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34020
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
M2k has the moveable shock cone inside inlet for Mach1.8+ flight. also mini canards.

Tejas has Rafale style intake with no supersonic cone so both are restricted to around Mach1.8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 13:43 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4603
Location: Duke Nukem
wrdos wrote:
It is a small bird that reminds me of the IDF fighter developed by Taiwanese in the late 1980s and early 1990s, although a little bit bigger with two small engines. Of course, the IDF shows very clear American influence while the LCA looks more French to me.


French!!
Of course, lets see. Frenchmen Here

and More Frenchmen here


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 13:52 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Feb 2004 12:31
Posts: 312
I didn't mean LCA a French bird but it showing some clear influence of Mirage designing concept. Considering the Indian experience with all the generations of French fighters after the WWII, it would be strange to me that LCA got no such influence. There is no offending intention here.

ArmenT wrote:
wrdos wrote:
It is a small bird that reminds me of the IDF fighter developed by Taiwanese in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the latter a little bit bigger. Of course, the IDF shows very clear American influence while the LCA looks more French to me.

It does look like a French Mirage somewhat in pictures from the side. However, if you look at the wings from the top or bottom angle, the difference in the wing shape from the Mirage is obvious. The LCA has a compound delta wing, whereas a Mirage has a traditional triangle shaped delta wing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas has a good picture of the LCA banking and the compound delta wing is clearly shown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mirage_III-5_Risszeichnung.png Compare that wing with the wing of a Mirage jet and you can see the difference in wing shapes.

Engine intakes are also completely different shaped, as are the engine itself, avionics, size etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 14:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2535
I think apart from french influence it has more of a British influence
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Vulcan

on second thoughts it has swedish influence see the saab 37 viggen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_37_Viggen

thinking more i think it has russian influence see tu 144 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 15:48 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34020
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
mark me words boys, the PAKDA will be a stealth version of the basic Avro vulcan shape.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 19:04 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 29 Nov 2011 00:42
Posts: 194
From Wiki:
The Gripen was a contender for the Indian MRCA competition for 126 multirole combat aircraft.[123] In April 2008, Gripen International offered the Next Generation Gripen for India's tender[124] and opened an office in New Delhi in order to support its efforts in the Indian market.[125] On 4 February 2009, Saab announced that it had partnered with India's Tata Group to develop the new Gripen variant to fit India's needs.[126]

The Indian Air Force (IAF) conducted extensive field trials and evaluated Gripen's flight performance, logistics capability, weapons systems, advanced sensors and weapons firing.[127] In April 2011, the IAF rejected Gripen's bid in favour of Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale.[128] Senior Indian Air Force officials while happy with the improved capabilities of Gripen NG, identified its high reliance on US-supplied hardware, including electronics, weaponry, and GE F414 engine as a factor that may hamper its export potential.[129]

Gurus, if GE414 engine was an impeding factor then how come we are buying 100 GE414 engines for Tejas?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 20:01 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26
Posts: 615
^^ we are surprised that you are surprised on this info.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 20:10 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Posts: 345
Shankaraa wrote:
if GE414 engine was an impeding factor then how come we are buying 100 GE414 engines for Tejas?

well I am clearly not a guru but,
we are buying GE414 for LCA directly from the OEM.
but in case of Gripen, the OEM(SAAB) will have to procure from US.

But, I don't think the "third party engine and components" were only reasons for Gripen's elimination, there must be technical parameters as well.
btw, I never felt like Gripen had a chance to win MMRCA. :D:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 20:29 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 29 Nov 2011 00:42
Posts: 194
^^ we are surprised that you are surprised on this info.

Sid -Who are 'we'?

I am also surprised that 'we' (whoever they are!) have a lot more faith in me than myself! :lol:

Sameer - I was only curious about GE engines; I did not imply anywhere that Gripen should win the contest

I know that GE engines are more powerful than Kaveri but I thought we have reservations about US sanctions and/or the limits USA would put on us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 21:04 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23798
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
Cain Marko wrote:
Quote:
That translates to 66 meters per sec in 15 sec, acceleration of 4.4 mpsec squared for a take off run of 500 meters.


My guesstimate is just about 750-800 mts based on the runway markings and google earth.


The calculation is simple

v=at where v=nose up velocity (240 kmph) and t=15 seconds to get nose up as per the video gives the acceleration as 4.4 meters per sec squared

Using a=4.4 and the formula s=(distance)=(a x t x t)/2 = (4.4 x 15 x 15)/2 = 495 meters for nose up.

One second later it's in the air - so about 560 meters. Assuming no headwind/tailwind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 23:30 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Posts: 345
Shankaraa wrote:
I was only curious about GE engines; I did not imply anywhere that Gripen should win the contest
I know that GE engines are more powerful than Kaveri but I thought we have reservations about US sanctions and/or the limits USA would put on us.


At some point, I was thinking that EJ200 would be better choice in terms of TOT.
But i think it would have compromised the project goals.
we have screwed(delayed) up the LCA MK1, by building it around in-development/non-existing Kaveri Engine(it did not exist when the designed ). and it would not be wise to do the same mistake again with LCA MK2.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012 23:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 5046
Engine gurus, a question. This 2007 news from the GE website says that
Quote:
The F404-IN-20 engine has generated more than 19,000 pounds (85 kN) uninstalled thrust and has completed 330 hours of Accelerated Mission testing, which is the equivalent of 1,000 hours of flight operation.


That value is more than the 78kN max thrust mentioned on the wiki page for the GE-F404 vanilla variant. But they are careful to mention "uninstalled thrust". How much would the thrust be lowered when the engine is actually inside an LCA? Is it only affected by the amount of airflow available or are there other factors involved in determining how much thrust an engine can produce when it is actually fitted inside an aircraft?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Mar 2012 00:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Jun 2010 23:06
Posts: 249
Location: look behind you
Quote:
v=at where v=nose up velocity (240 kmph) and t=15 seconds to get nose up as per the video gives the acceleration as 4.4 meters per sec squared

Using a=4.4 and the formula s=(distance)=(a x t x t)/2 = (4.4 x 15 x 15)/2 = 495 meters for nose up.

One second later it's in the air - so about 560 meters. Assuming no headwind/tailwind.


I'm afraid your estimate is a bit far off...

You do realize that equation is meant only for constant acceleration... Aircraft during takeoff roll DON'T have constant acceleration... Its indeed pretty complicated to calculate liftoff distance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Mar 2012 00:33 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 5046
Where is the 4.4m/s^2 value mentioned?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Mar 2012 00:55 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26869
Location: NowHere
assuming a ∆ less for tail/head wind, then it would be the take-off (560m approx) less ∆. So an average of 500 meters to take off is not a bad guess.

nLCA needs to achieve this in less than 1000ft or less. right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Mar 2012 01:40 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
EDIT: Repeated post. Sorry!


Last edited by indranilroy on 17 Mar 2012 03:33, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Mar 2012 01:40 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
EDIT: Repeated post. Sorry!


Last edited by indranilroy on 17 Mar 2012 03:33, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4018 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 ... 101  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, joji and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group